The result was Draftify. There isn't a clear consensus that draftification will solve the issues that a long main space tenure didn't, but nor is there a clear consensus that it isn't an appropriate solution. I will protect the mainspace title to enforce AfC, but have no issue with an experienced AfC reviewer or other admin removing it when the time is right. I do not need to be consulted. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This article has already been at AfD three times, with decisions being keep, delete, and keep. In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC. So why then are we at AfD again? The reason is that this article is irredeemably promotional. Going through the history, it becomes evident that it has been promotional from the very beginning. One sign of this are the descriptions of Tausch's work sourced almost exclusively to his own publications, or to articles that mention him in passing. The article is also excessively refbombed with 196 (!!) references. The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions... Given the foregoing, I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history. However, cleaning this up so that it becomes an acceptable neutral bio will be a major undertaking and given that I haven't found a neutral version in the article history, I argue that it would be better to start from scratch and that WP:TNT applies, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
WorldCat (Worldcat Identities) lists three book titles present at more than 1000 global libraries, and two more books present at more than 300 libraries.should never appear in any article. That is the type of the information that ((Authority control)) is meant to present, if it is of interest of to the reader. I feel that there are many other examples in the article, including the WP:Citation overkill. This article is simply not ready for prime-time & needs to be pruned & rewritten. I would recommend only moving it back to the main space when a consensus has been made to do so.
References
External reviewers included Ulrich Albrecht and Wilfried Röhrich.just do not belong; maybe if Albrecht & Röhrich were notable, but without articles they are clearly not.
9 years in main article spaceis too long for something this poorly crafted. Moving it into the Draft namespace will force resolution of these issues. Peaceray (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
In addition, the following few selected works, referring to Tausch's publications, could be used in this context:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Some of the think tanks, which published Tausch's work o er the years, include
• Hoover Institution, Stanford, California;
• Institute for National Security Studies (Israel);
• Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS Institute), Moscow;
• IZA Institute of Labor Economics
• Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jerusalem, Israel,
Open Syllabus, which is a database with nine million English-language syllabi from 140 countries and which was founded at The American Assembly, a public policy institute associated with Columbia University [1] lists 59 global classes using materials by Tausch on their syllabi. [2] By any standards, this would be an argument to keep.
Keep, weak keep, notable, not notable, thumb up thumb down? Isn't all that, in a way, absurd?
Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)